Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Periods of Modern UU History

The lens that I am looking through in thinking about modern UU history is our relationship to the social-political-cultural history of the USA.

There are three periods: (The dating is somewhat arbitrary and schematic; using Presidential elections as mile markers.)

1961-1968: Merger creates a new liberal denomination at a time when liberalism was ascendent in the culture. The Civil Rights movement, especially, creates a cultural space in which liberals feel that they are making progress. Lyndon Johnson turns the awful tragedy of the Kennedy assassination into a progressive triumph, winning a landslide election and in the 1965-66 period passing a series of foundational progressive laws, including Medicare and Medicaid. A War on Poverty is actually considered.

Throughout most of the country, UU churches are united in support of racial integration. Anecdotally, I hear stories of churches with partner relationships with AME churches, including socializing together at dinners in private homes. I have been told that more African Americans belonged to UU churches than anytime before or since. Our ministers went to Selma, and UU's died in the struggle. I was in high school at this time, and I remember our optimism that the world was coming our way.

1968-2008: The Wilderness years. There are two sub-periods of the Wilderness years:

1968-1980. In 1968, Richard Nixon was elected by exploiting resentments of the liberal culture, which was portrayed as elitist. The country enters into a period of polarization between its liberal and conservative cultures. The liberals start to divide between liberals and radicals. The Black Empowerment controversy within the UUA is an example. Radicals start turning to Marxism as a overall theory. A radical culture of defiance develops among younger liberals: no longer looking toward winning the majority, but more interested in exploring the revolutionary dimensions of what had been previously seen as reforms: black power, radical feminism, gay liberation, open marriage, psychedelia, hyper-democracy. All these currents washed through UU churches, and in some places, enabled a lot of personal excess. More importantly, the radical break with traditional sexual morality allowed previously existing tradition of ministerial sexual misconduct to surface and even claim legitimacy. I left the UU movement as a college student in 1969, and so I have no first hand memory of UUism during this period, though I hear stories. Who has memories of these days?Meanwhile, conservatives pointed to every excess among the liberals, using them to feed cultural fears and resentments. The emergence of the anti-abortion movement and the defeat of the ERA were early successes. This is a deeply unsettling time in American history. Nixon is re-elected and then is impeached and resigns. Carter is elected, but country is moving rightward, isolating and neutralizing him. Liberal culture is being shredded by external pressure and internal contradiction.

1980-2008: The battle is over and the conservatives won, punctuated by the election of Ronald Reagan on an explicitly anti-liberal campaign. Conservatives portrayed themselves as resisting an over-reaching and oppressive elitist liberal hegemony. Liberalism began to be demonized; it was an accusation. Self-identification as "liberal" plummeted. The Great Society was declared to be a failure. The War on Poverty was a mistake, while the War in Vietnam was noble. Ostentatious displays of wealth were back in style.Religiously, evangelical Protestantism grew rapidly and mega-churches were the new face of religion. People started joining UU churches because they wanted their kids to have a religion to point to when they were pressured by their classmates. UU's reported that their kids did not feel safe at school because they were "not Christian" and therefore, going to Hell. UU's looked at the mega-churches as both models and rivals. We asked ourselves, "How could we be successful like that, but with liberal theology?" In 1961, we thought we were going to be the next big thing in religion, and now we are insignificant, both statistically and in influence.

2008-Present. The 3rd period of modern UU history is the present time, in which liberalism in all its forms is becoming ascendent and conservatism is in decline. The 2008 Obama election revealed that the demographics of the country were shifting and that the political and cultural landscape was shifting. A whole crop of younger people were reaching young adulthood and they were not as stuck as the older generations. Issues of sexuality and multi-culturalism that had been difficult for the baby boomers were old hat to them. These young people were liberal, activated, and connected through social media in ways their elders could only dimly grasp.

Religiously, the landscape had shifted. During the Wilderness years, the talk was of the megachurches and the Religious Right and Christian Dominionism. In this new emerging era, we talk about "the Nones" and the collapse of the Roman Catholic Church in the US.

My hypothesis is that the 40 years in the wilderness was traumatic and formative for contemporary Unitarian Universalism.
I believe we can start to see our modern history critically if we see it as shaped in a time that we are in no longer. It is crucial for us to get out of our internal focus which sees UU development only in terms of our internal struggles between ourselves and between our present selves and our ideal selves. We need to see ourselves as religious people trying to minister in an external world.

I don't think that we should be harsh in our self-judgments. The question is just "what did we do and not do in response to the condition to being the most liberal religion in an aggressively conservative culture?"

And the next question is "How do the habits of response that we made to the Wilderness period shape our ministry in this new era?"

I see two patterns of response: accommodation and defiance. More on them later.

I am anxious to hear responses, questions, elaborations and commentary. I would like to gather a group who will make a long term commitment to a continuing conversation about the history of the UUA.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

A pretty accurate sketch, Tom. I also note that the 2008 election was the first since 1968 when the candidate's military service, war experience, lack of it, or position on Vietnam were not crucial. McCain's service was honored pro forma, Obama's lack of same was not an issue at all. Positions of UU's on these same issues were crucial for our internal conversations and no longer seem so.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We are talking about the historical context of the 1940's and 1950's Liberal Religion. The first factor was the Cold War; the second factor was Suburbanization, and the third was the emergence of integrationist Civil Rights Movement, mostly in the South: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Unitarians and Universalists were largely sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. In this, they were moving in that direction with a larger force of white liberals. The question that I have is "how did those U/U's see the theological justification for that alliance?"

In 1946, in the immediate aftermath of the war, A. Powell Davies proclaimed in: ‘A Faith of an Unrepentant Liberal”: calling Unitarianism “the faith that begins in individual freedom of belief and goes to the limitless, building throughout the world the Free and Universal Church." Davies was centering a universal movement toward freedom in…

The institutional DNA of the Unitarian Universalist Association was established at the time of merger. (I am talking about the UUA, not individual congregations, or this larger thing of the "liberal religious tradition in the USA")

I see three governing assumptions that come down from the time of merger.

(1) We are going to be bigger. The merger generation assumed that we were poised to become the religious movement that captured the emerging new consensus: progressive, modernist, liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant. Millions of people were coming our way; our work was to make them room.

The problem with the assumption that we are the verge of growth is that it has created a recurring frustration, a nagging "what is wrong with us?" bouncing around in our collective heads.

(2) The merger generation thought that public ministry was our most important work. The President would be our public spokesperson, and their ideal ministry setting was the steps of the Capitol.

In 1947, President of the American Unitarian Association, Frederick May Eliot, proposed the formation of the United Liberal Church of America, which would be created by the coming together of Reformed Jews, Unitarians, Universalists, Ethical Culture, and religious liberals “of every name and sign”.

Eliot’s proposal was in tune with the times. World War 2 had been won through the creation of a large multi-national alliance of nations. The postwar era continued that trend; it was all about creating big institutions. In the postwar period, NATO was created and the European Common Market, and the United Nations. Big was good; big equalled power. President Eliot saw that the need to create a larger and more powerful institution for liberal religion. He had a specific understanding of what was needed for liberal religious growth — institutional strength.

The desire for greater institutional strength led eventually to the merger of the Unitarians and Universalists in 1961; it was a much more…

I wonder if the UUA's stuckness on race isn't built into our DNA, established at the time of merger. As I have mentioned before, our formation came in a particular time of history (1961) and at a particular time in the development of liberal religion.

Religious liberals were polarized between theists and humanists, and as a consequence turned toward public ministry as a way to unify.

At that point in time, the early 1960's, Racial Liberalism was the prevailing social vision. (Racial Liberalism can be defined as Integration and the minimization of racial difference. Color-blindness as a goal.)

In the absence of deeper theological unity, Racial Liberalism became the practical embodiment of Universalism, what we understood ourselves to be. Not just what we believed, but what we were.

You can see it in the shocked white response to the formation of black-only UU organizations in the late 1960's. Race-based caucusing was seen to a violation of something fundamental about…

Time to turn off the cell phones.Time to put the pagers on stun.It’s even time to put a piece of duct tape on the face of your watch.It’s Christmas Eve and time is standing still for a moment. It is the time, maybe the only time of the year, when here and now drift away and we fall under the spell of story-time. Tonight we are both here, AND on a lonely hillside outside of Bethlehem. Tonight, we are with each other, friends and family, returning students and relatives from far away, AND we are also with the Magi, on a journey and such a hard time for journey. Tonight we listen to our choir, AND we listen to choirs of angels, a whole heavenly host of angels we have heard on high. Tonight, like every night, is new, a never happening before moment in onrushing time, AND yet, we have been here before, done this before, told this story before, and heard it before. There is way that the story we tell tonight is always happening: birth and death and taxes, weary travelers with no place to stay, b…

Regular Readers and Followers

Popular Posts

We are talking about the historical context of the 1940's and 1950's Liberal Religion. The first factor was the Cold War; the second factor was Suburbanization, and the third was the emergence of integrationist Civil Rights Movement, mostly in the South: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Unitarians and Universalists were largely sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. In this, they were moving in that direction with a larger force of white liberals. The question that I have is "how did those U/U's see the theological justification for that alliance?"

In 1946, in the immediate aftermath of the war, A. Powell Davies proclaimed in: ‘A Faith of an Unrepentant Liberal”: calling Unitarianism “the faith that begins in individual freedom of belief and goes to the limitless, building throughout the world the Free and Universal Church." Davies was centering a universal movement toward freedom in…

The institutional DNA of the Unitarian Universalist Association was established at the time of merger. (I am talking about the UUA, not individual congregations, or this larger thing of the "liberal religious tradition in the USA")

I see three governing assumptions that come down from the time of merger.

(1) We are going to be bigger. The merger generation assumed that we were poised to become the religious movement that captured the emerging new consensus: progressive, modernist, liberal, cosmopolitan, tolerant. Millions of people were coming our way; our work was to make them room.

The problem with the assumption that we are the verge of growth is that it has created a recurring frustration, a nagging "what is wrong with us?" bouncing around in our collective heads.

(2) The merger generation thought that public ministry was our most important work. The President would be our public spokesperson, and their ideal ministry setting was the steps of the Capitol.

In 1947, President of the American Unitarian Association, Frederick May Eliot, proposed the formation of the United Liberal Church of America, which would be created by the coming together of Reformed Jews, Unitarians, Universalists, Ethical Culture, and religious liberals “of every name and sign”.

Eliot’s proposal was in tune with the times. World War 2 had been won through the creation of a large multi-national alliance of nations. The postwar era continued that trend; it was all about creating big institutions. In the postwar period, NATO was created and the European Common Market, and the United Nations. Big was good; big equalled power. President Eliot saw that the need to create a larger and more powerful institution for liberal religion. He had a specific understanding of what was needed for liberal religious growth — institutional strength.

The desire for greater institutional strength led eventually to the merger of the Unitarians and Universalists in 1961; it was a much more…

I wonder if the UUA's stuckness on race isn't built into our DNA, established at the time of merger. As I have mentioned before, our formation came in a particular time of history (1961) and at a particular time in the development of liberal religion.

Religious liberals were polarized between theists and humanists, and as a consequence turned toward public ministry as a way to unify.

At that point in time, the early 1960's, Racial Liberalism was the prevailing social vision. (Racial Liberalism can be defined as Integration and the minimization of racial difference. Color-blindness as a goal.)

In the absence of deeper theological unity, Racial Liberalism became the practical embodiment of Universalism, what we understood ourselves to be. Not just what we believed, but what we were.

You can see it in the shocked white response to the formation of black-only UU organizations in the late 1960's. Race-based caucusing was seen to a violation of something fundamental about…

Time to turn off the cell phones.Time to put the pagers on stun.It’s even time to put a piece of duct tape on the face of your watch.It’s Christmas Eve and time is standing still for a moment. It is the time, maybe the only time of the year, when here and now drift away and we fall under the spell of story-time. Tonight we are both here, AND on a lonely hillside outside of Bethlehem. Tonight, we are with each other, friends and family, returning students and relatives from far away, AND we are also with the Magi, on a journey and such a hard time for journey. Tonight we listen to our choir, AND we listen to choirs of angels, a whole heavenly host of angels we have heard on high. Tonight, like every night, is new, a never happening before moment in onrushing time, AND yet, we have been here before, done this before, told this story before, and heard it before. There is way that the story we tell tonight is always happening: birth and death and taxes, weary travelers with no place to stay, b…